Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 7

The chapter contrasts Tertullian’s 63-word “rule of faith” with the 12,079-word Westminster Confession and argues that “the further…from the time of Christ, the more theological dogma there is”—where do you see your tradition adding “essentials” beyond the early boundary lines described here, and what would you be afraid would happen if those additions were treated as non-essential?

Another way to ask: Where has your tradition added extra “must-believe” points beyond the early church’s basic rule of faith, and what do you fear would happen if those extras weren’t treated as essential?

Direct Answer Bercot’s main point is that the early boundary lines were very simple, so any later “essentials” beyond that should be questioned—especially if they can’t be traced back to around AD 100; the fear today is often that loosening those additions would feel like losing control or certainty.

Support from Transcript:

He quotes Tertullian’s concise “rule of faith” and notes it is only “63 words.”
He contrasts it with the Westminster Confession at “12,079 words” to show how “the more theological dogma there is” over time.
He says apostles saw the faith as already complete: Paul warns against “any other gospel” (Gal. 1:9) and Jude says the faith was “once for all delivered” (Jude 3).
He concludes, “there would be no more theologians and no further definitions of the Christian faith after the apostles.”
He urges: “we should question any new dogmas that go beyond the simple faith,” and if continuity “can’t be traced back to AD 100,” it’s hard to claim as historic faith.

Discussion Follow-ups What do you think your community is trying to protect by adding tests beyond the simple “rule of faith”—purity, identity, unity, or something else?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 7 of 10